Evidence for God from Science

DBowling wrote:

B. W. wrote: The Books of Enoch, Jasher, and Jubilees are all quoted in the bible. They do not malign the bible. They support the bible. They honor YHWH as well. They were refereed too in the bible and quoted.

In your opinion are the intertestamental pseudepigrapha that you mention above equivalent to the OT and NT canon in accuracy and authority?
I think it's safe to assume that you do not.

If not, then what is the basis for your assumption that these intertestamental traditions accurately reflect historical events that occurred over 2,000 years before these traditions were created?

Are you confident that the three pseudepigraphal documents you mention above have no contradictions with canonical Scripture?

Please EVERYONE PLEASE GET IT THRU YOUR HEADS - NO - THESES ARE NOT NOT NOT THE SAME AS CANNON.

Historical context, learning to look at what the 2 Temple era people knew and believed in is important in proper bible interpretation. If we stick to the idea that all things out side of cannon are evil then, what about our own history?

History should be outlawed. Math should be outlawed, as well as philosophy because none of it is cannon of the bible - so is that what many folks here seem to be saying? Is it?

I do not think so...

Between 3rd century AD to late Middles ages is when the Sethite view and leader view came in vogue. We are being asked to disregard what the folks knew about as common knowledge concerning Genesis 6:1-4 that transcends different cultures and areas on the entire globe of that era.

In a crime scene, you have witnesses. Each witness will tell of what they see in their own view points and vantage point. If witnesses sympathize with the criminal who committed the crime, their testimony will reflect that. Look at the Michael Brown case and Black Lives Matter organization for that matter.

One the other hand, if one is neutral - they will report what they see in an unbiased manner.

The role of police investigation is to compile the testimonies and sort them out. When it comes to the crime of the fallen angels. We are told to toss out all evidence because it is not cannon of scripture.

How many know that the book of Daniel uses imagery of the ancient pagan false deities of Babylon and so did John in the book of Revelation?

Why do the Prophets of the bible and bible name some of these by name?

Isa 46:1, Bel bows down, Nebo stoops; Their idols were on the beasts and on the cattle. Your carriages were heavily loaded, A burden to the weary beast." NKJV

Jer 50:2, "Declare among the nations, Proclaim, and set up a standard; Proclaim—do not conceal it— Say, 'Babylon is taken, Bel is shamed. Merodach is broken in pieces; Her idols are humiliated, Her images are broken in pieces.'" NKJV

Jer 51:44, "I will punish Bel in Babylon, And I will bring out of his mouth what he has swallowed; And the nations shall not stream to him anymore. Yes, the wall of Babylon shall fall." NKJV

....and a host of others too...

We are told to shut up, do not investigate the crime scene - nothing to see here. Well, understanding bible end time prophecy is greatly hindered by such attitudes and that is tragic.

Before the Cannon of Scripture what did the 2 Temple era Jews read? Anyone dare know the answer? That had the Torah beginning at the time of Moses. However - what was before? What did Moses know? Why was Enoch Taken? Who was Able what did Able know? Jarred know?

What did the pre-flood folks know about God? How did they stray? Who motivated them to fall into various sins and how were the false gods system created? Where did the dark arts come from?

Who taught that to humanity? What was the cutting of roots, doing drugs to commune with spirits - who taught that to humanity?

Who taught them to work metal and do warfare? Who taught them to conjure using spells and rituals? Who taught humanity to paint themselves and doll themselves up with make-up and ideas of self-glory? Do you know?

That is the crime scene and yet, we are sold this bill of goods that only the codified cannon of scripture way back in the 300-400 AD times frames is the only evidence we have and any modern ones that come after that are correct.

Do you reading this really think God incapable of speaking before the councils of Nicene, etc, anything at all without needing their approval first? Can you look at the evidence even if not part of the cannon - the records we still have and connect the dots as intelligent people?

Eccl 3:15 says: "That which is has already been, and what is to be has already been; And God requires an account of what is past" NKJV.

Isaiah 42:9 says this:"Behold, the former things have come to pass, and new things I declare; Before they spring forth I tell you of them." NKJV

God spoke in times past. Some of it is actually recorded. Those folks in that ancient era read these accounts that God left them thru contemporaries of their time. God sent these to them to set the record straight. These ancient folks of God had to deal with the demonic world of pagan false gods. They understood the war against god's people. They understood... it is we who do not.

They left witness of what they believed and understood so as to go against the pagan world view that these beings were nice entities sent to improve humanity. The pagan worldview was that their deities came to set humans free and improve their lives as long as they performed for them this and that thing.

The story line was that sought to slay the enemy (God) and a Slayer, Nergal (Azazel), who was imprisoned in Hell as a scapegoat fro the angelic rebellion, who would send his son Nebo to earth to finish the task at the end of days to improve humanity by killing off all of God's people.

Did you know that story line? Do you think knowing such things is important to understanding the book of Daniel and Revelation?

Did you know the Importance of Caesarea Philippi in Matthew 16? Did you not know there was a place near there called the Gates of Hell?

Did you not know that the Mountain Jesus was transfigured on was not Mt Tabor because that mountain had a Roman Garrison and small village on its top (and its summit is not very big either) and the time line to travel between places and the bible clearly says they were alone on the high mountain?

The Mountain closest to Caesarea Philippi is mount Hermon as it was located at the base of its range. The Grotto of Pan was also called the gates of Hell. The area around the sea of Galilee, and Samaria was where kings Og and Sihon ruled. Did you not know that area was once known as the land where the giants lived?

These things would have been known to the 2 temple era Jews and Jesus' disciples. They are not known to us because we discard all the witnesses accounts and evidence.

Can the readers try to understand what Jesus was doing by taking the fight to the enemy, by calming the storm on the sea (Baal) casting out Legion - sending out 70 - healing oppressed and sick in that region and and then literally stand at the gates of Hell to declare the defeat of the demonic is profound!

And, then go to the top of Mount Hermon and transfigured, where according to the ancient records was where the deed of the fallen angels occurred, sends a strong message: The Earth is the Lord's and all the fullness thereof it.... The King is come to take back the Kingdom as humanity's kinsman redeemer...

That is missed. The richness of the bible is missed when one discounts the evidence...of the crime scene... and what was going on. So is it any wonder the modern church world is a mess as so many are simply concerned with the needs of man and not Jesus' assignment to the church. So very sad... look at your countries your towns, enemy winning?

People have a right to discard the evidence but what they miss, well, will not be known by them. Very sad.

So, we have a crime scene - Gen 6:1-4. We have testimony of the criminals and their supporters and we have the testimony of God and His people still on record way back then. The testimony of the devious criminal element would love the church world to dismiss the evidence and cloud that line of thinking with human leaders and Sethite views - is it any wonder?

Wake up people of God - the enemy has been at the churches gates too long!

Jesus desires us to be at the enemy’s gates and not at each-others throats...concerned only with the ways of men as more important than pushing back darkness to its defensive gates in our towns, cities, homes, families, lives, country....

Jesus rebuke Peter - and - the church world needs that rebuke today.
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

DBowling wrote:

B. W. wrote: The Books of Enoch, Jasher, and Jubilees are all quoted in the bible. They do not malign the bible. They support the bible. They honor YHWH as well. They were refereed too in the bible and quoted.

In your opinion are the intertestamental pseudepigrapha that you mention above equivalent to the OT and NT canon in accuracy and authority?
I think it's safe to assume that you do not.

If not, then what is the basis for your assumption that these intertestamental traditions accurately reflect historical events that occurred over 2,000 years before these traditions were created?

Are you confident that the three pseudepigraphal documents you mention above have no contradictions with canonical Scripture?

Please EVERYONE PLEASE GET IT THRU YOUR HEADS - NO - THESES ARE THE SAME AS CANNON.

That assertion (like some of your others) is flat out false!

Pseudepigrapha is very different from Scriptural Cannon.
Pseudepigrapha does not have the same Divine inspiration as Scriptural Cannon.
Pseudepigrapha does not have the same authority as Scriptural Cannon.
Pseudepigrapha does not have the same historical accuracy as Scriptural Cannon.

You are looking at the wrong source for Truth if you are leaning on intertestamental tradition and Pseudepigripha which actually come into direct conflict with Divinely inspired Scripture.

Where does tradition come into direct conflict with scripture?

PaulSacramento wrote:Where does tradition come into direct conflict with scripture?

I did a study a number of years ago on the Pseudepigrapha. In fact my father gave me his two volume copy of Charles Pseudepigrapha because I was so interested in it. Jude's quote of a verse from Enoch fascinated me. So I was asking myself if Enoch was historically reliable (which is very different from cannonical). I can't remember the details (this was decades ago), but the inconsistency between the Pseudepigrapha and Scripture was pronounced enough that I agreed with the Septuagint scholars (200 BC) and Jamnia (90 AD) that the Pseudepigrapha did not merit equivalence with OT Cannon.

I will have to redo some research to come up with a few additional examples (other than asserting that demons are 'sons of God') where Pseudepigrapha come into direct conflict with Cannonical Scripture.

DBowling wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Where does tradition come into direct conflict with scripture?

I did a study a number of years ago on the Pseudepigrapha. In fact my father gave me his two volume copy of Charles Pseudepigrapha because I was so interested in it. Jude's quote of a verse from Enoch fascinated me. So I was asking myself if Enoch was historically reliable (which is very different from cannonical). I can't remember the details (this was decades ago), but the inconsistency between the Pseudepigrapha and Scripture was pronounced enough that I agreed with the Septuagint scholars (200 BC) and Jamnia (90 AD) that the Pseudepigrapha did not merit equivalence with OT Cannon.

I will have to redo some research to come up with a few additional examples (other than asserting that demons are 'sons of God') where Pseudepigrapha come into direct conflict with Cannonical Scripture.

I think that we need to be careful when we not only elevate extra-canoical writings to scripture BUT when we also insinuate they have no ability to help us understand scripture.

PaulSacramento wrote: I think that we need to be careful when we not only elevate extra-canoical writings to scripture BUT when we also insinuate they have no ability to help us understand scripture.

I was quite shocked when BW asserted that Pseudepigrapha are "the same as" Cannonical Scripture.
I sure hope there was a typo in there somewhere or that I totally misunderstood what he was claiming.
That is a dangerous claim to make about Scripture.

I think I have demonstrated a number of times that I believe extrascriptural sources can and do provide historical context and corroboration for the Scriptural narrative.
I have no problem with that, and I do believe that tradition can potentially provide valuable insight into the meaning and interpretation of Scripture.

Traditions and Pseudepigrapha from the 100s and 200s BC can provide lots of insight into the thinking of Judaism in the 100s and 200s BC. As contemporary documents to that era they can help us understand Jewish thought in that era.

However, the problem arises when we use intertestamental traditions and Pseudepigrapha from 200 BC and extrapolate backwards 3000 years to an era that is not contemporary with the traditions in question.

Traditions from 200 BC are very valuable to help us understand Jewish thinking in 200 BC.
But traditions from 200 BC are of little value in understanding historical events from 5000 to 3000 BC.

These Pseudepigripha from the intertestamental era are full of fanciful extrapolations that go way beyond the Scriptural texts.

Here's just one example from The Book of Jubilees 3:27-28 that I ran across when I dusted off and started leafing through my Charles Pseudepigrapha.
To avoid typing, I'll copy paste from an online copy of the Book of Jubilees that I found
http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/index.htm

And on that day on which Adam went forth from the Garden, he offered as a sweet savour an offering, frankincense, galbanum, and stacte, and spices in the morning with the rising of the sun from the day when he covered his shame.
And on that day was closed the mouth of all beasts, and of cattle, and of birds, and of whatever walks, and of whatever moves, so that they could no longer speak: for they had all spoken one with another with one lip and with one tongue.

This is just one of many examples of the kinds of extrascriptural extrapolations that these second century BC Pseudepigrapha are full of.
I believe another example of these intertestamental extrascriptural extrapolations is the tradition that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were fallen angels.

B.W. wrote:
Please EVERYONE PLEASE GET IT THRU YOUR HEADS - NO - THESES ARE THE SAME AS CANNON.

I think this was a typo. I think he meant to say, "THESE ARE NOT THE SAME AS CANON".

Hopefully B. W. will let us know.

DB: But traditions from 200 BC are of little value in understanding historical events from 5000 to 3000 BC.

Yes. Is this not the very same thing that inerrancy-defending Bible scholars assert is a major problem with and criticism of the various, so-called "lost" Gospels, as they written FAR after the first century events and eyewitness era? And while conservative Bible scholars cite such time discrepancies between non-canonical/far-later books and events they purport to have knowledge of, and yet, the intertestamental traditions and Pseudepigrapha appear to have a FAR greater time gap problem, between recorded traditions, and in the period of the actual events. Such and enormous time gap (of around 3,000 to almost 5,000 years) makes it impossible to trust the accuracy of their content. Am I missing something?

It is important to understand that the Pseudepigrapha and the inter-testament writings ( especially those quoted in the NT), are very important in understanding what the readers and writers and scholars of the time. believed about what was written.
We can't discount them.
It is a mistake to ONLY look upon the NT and OT with the "filters" of medieval writers or writings 100's of years later or our "rose coloured" glasses.

We must always take into account the ERA in which the writing took place, the world view of the writers AND their audience.

The writings of those times, biblical or not, help us in that.

Some direct contradictions between The Book of Enoch and Scripture
An online copy of The Book of Enoch can be found here
http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/enoch.htm

From Genesis 5:23-24

21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked faithfully with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived a total of 365 years. 24 Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

The key to both of the contradictions that I am going to point out is Scripture's claim that Enoch lived 365 years before God "took him away".

Enoch 60:1

In the year 500, in the seventh month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the life of Enoch. In that Parable I saw how a mighty quaking made the heaven of heavens to quake, and the host of the Most High, and the angels, a thousand thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand, were disquieted with a great disquiet.

According to the Book of Enoch, Enoch received a vision "In the year 500, in the seventh month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the life of Enoch".
This directly contradicts the Scriptural claim that God took Enoch after only 365 years.

Enoch 107:2

And now, my son, go and make known to thy son Lamech that this son, which has been born, is in truth his son, and that (this) is no lie.' 3. And when Methuselah had heard the words of his father Enoch-for he had shown to him everything in secret-he returned and showed (them) to him and called the name of that son Noah; for he will comfort the earth after all the destruction.

Again we have a factual discrepancy in the Book of Enoch regarding the life of Enoch.
If you go to Genesis 5 and do the math, Enoch was taken by God before Noah was born.

The book of Enoch was not written by Enoch. It was written sometime during the intertestamental period, around 4000 years after the time of the historical Enoch.
The Book of Enoch (and the Book of Jubilees) quote from another non-extant pseudepigraphal document called The Book of Noah.
This is most likely the source of the contradiction in Enoch 60:1. When the writer of the Book of Enoch copied this quote from the Book of Noah he simply substituted the name Enoch for Noah from the source document.

PaulSacramento wrote:It is important to understand that the Pseudepigrapha and the inter-testament writings ( especially those quoted in the NT), are very important in understanding what the readers and writers and scholars of the time. believed about what was written.
We can't discount them.

As I said above, I fully agree with your statement.
The Pseudepigrapha and intertestamental traditions can give us insight into what some scholars of 200 BC believed.

However Pseudepigrapha and intertestamental traditions from 200 BC are unreliable sources of information for what occurred historically from 3000 to 5000 BC.

DBowling wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:It is important to understand that the Pseudepigrapha and the inter-testament writings ( especially those quoted in the NT), are very important in understanding what the readers and writers and scholars of the time. believed about what was written.
We can't discount them.

As I said above, I fully agree with your statement.
The Pseudepigrapha and intertestamental traditions can give us insight into what some scholars of 200 BC believed.

However Pseudepigrapha and intertestamental traditions from 200 BC are unreliable sources of information for what occurred historically from 3000 to 5000 BC.

Are you saying that, HISTORICALLY, we should not trust ANY writings from the intertestamental traditions ?

PaulSacramento wrote:

DBowling wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:It is important to understand that the Pseudepigrapha and the inter-testament writings ( especially those quoted in the NT), are very important in understanding what the readers and writers and scholars of the time. believed about what was written.
We can't discount them.

As I said above, I fully agree with your statement.
The Pseudepigrapha and intertestamental traditions can give us insight into what some scholars of 200 BC believed.

However Pseudepigrapha and intertestamental traditions from 200 BC are unreliable sources of information for what occurred historically from 3000 to 5000 BC.

Are you saying that, HISTORICALLY, we should not trust ANY writings from the intertestamental traditions ?

If the tradition in question is contemporary with the historical event in question, then I would lean towards assuming the tradition in question has a decent chance of being historically accurate.

If the earliest appearance of the tradition in question is separated from the historical event in question by thousands of years then yes... I am very skeptical regarding the historical accuracy of a tradition that first appears thousands of years after the fact.

Greetings MY BAD TYPO do to recent illness this is what I meant to write in my last Post and I corrected it there

B. W. wrote:Please EVERYONE PLEASE GET IT THRU YOUR HEADS - NO - THESES ARE NOT NOT NOT THE SAME AS CANNON

Had several days of pain and severe breathing issues. Should have proof read before I posted... which I corrected and edited and deleted words by accident. Oh well - record set straight.

Sorry about that -

No the these book, Enoch, Jubilees, Jasher, Book of Giant's fragments, and Josephus are not cannon. They support cannon and give insight into what the 2nd century Temple Jews believed and that they did not believe it any sort of leader or sethite view.

Now, you have paganism coming to light these days - the same paganism of the Babylonian era - same deities different names and the translations of ancient Sumerian text coming out. These text are being used to undermine Judaic/Christian thought and the bible.

The modern secular scholars and critics of bible come out and use these texts and teach countless people that the bible stole the pagan story lines - like Noah story - that the bible has it roots in paganism. That the ancient deities were the good guys come to enlighten humanity so they can live any old way they please murdering, robbing, ruining each other. Ancient aliens has more multiplied followers than New York City has Christians who read their bibles at least 1 days a week.

You have rise in occult practices and younger adult folks going after these as well as ignoring Jesus altogether. Rise of atheism. Rise of debased behaviors with the high cost emotionally, physically and medically. Try to reach these people who are influenced by these secular scholars, you will come under scrutiny and have them explain that the ancient pagan religions created what the writers of bible penned in the bible in order to oppress and control people. Some of these people will have questions about ET and paganism and Hinduism...

What are you going to do to counter the ancient pagan religious records with?

Site the sethite view - or human leader view?

That won't cut it.

We do have to use the sources that were used to set the record straight. Enoch wrote what he wrote and it was passed down. We have other ancient records as well too that explain who and what these false deities were and did. We have archaeological/historical records of the pagan rites and rituals that were cruel and inhumane.

Now we are told by fellow Christians to shut up - can't use these sources and only the 300 Add to 600 AD new revelation of the sethite view and Leader view can be used to defend the bible regarding Gen 6:1-4 and the case of Nimrod.

Well, the 2nd and even 1st Jewish temple era Jews did not do that. They faced paganism first hand and the book of Enoch, etc, were understood as God's record against the perverting the historical record. They understood these as the fallen sons of God as the root cause of the fall of humanity. They knew these fallen ones were evil. They had records to combat paganism's twisting of truth.

It would be wise to uses what records we have still available to us today to combat the rise of the occult, paganism, and secularist today who will cite the Babylonian records of gods created the bible and thus no need for the bible or Jesus.

Truly the last days...

Again sorry for my typo - that caused confusion.

When you catch an illness - one should simply stay away and not write anything. Learned that lesson...
-
-
-

RickD wrote:

B.W. wrote:
Please EVERYONE PLEASE GET IT THRU YOUR HEADS - NO - THESES ARE THE SAME AS CANNON.

I think this was a typo. I think he meant to say, "THESE ARE NOT THE SAME AS CANON".

Hopefully B. W. will let us know.

Yes my typo - was ill with breathing issues and pain should have waited a few days longer to post... corrected it